What is a good average rating?

As a manager, i use all possible avenues within the game to try and exploit every last bit of performance from my players. From press conferences, to media interaction, to team talks, i find im pretty proficient in pepping my players up. Now, i understand getting every player to have an average rating of 9.9/10.0 of the last 5 games is impossible, so my question to you guys is: Just what do you count as an acceptable average rating?

For me, anything averaging over say 7.2 in 5 games is good enough. Its not poor, but not excellent and if the whole of my team produces these sorts of performances, then generally results go in my favour. So far, just my regular starting XI have an average of:

GK - 7.32

DR - 7.10

DC - 7.30

DC - 7.22

DL - 7.30

MR - 7.00

MC - 7.10

MC - 7.42

ML - 7.46

ST - 7.38

ST - 7.54

Thats not bad IMO, so what are your views? What do you accept before you start thinking about dropping players? Are these numbers helpful? By that i mean i've had players that have appeared to do well, but by looking at things over the 5 game period, it appears they have flattered to decieve. Share your views

First, I believe it depends on the league you are playing in. I typically manage MLS. In MLS, anything over 7.0 is quite good and anything over 7.2 is great. In fact, I consider players of 6.8 or better to be fine for MLS. To answer this question for yourself, do a quick look at the other teams in your league. Look at the average ratings of the top-2 teams, 2 teams from the middle of the table and the bottom-2 teams. This will give you a quick idea of where your boys should fall.

I'm happy with around 6.7 or above usually, if I'm a better side I'll demand more though.

I think the numbers can be misleading. Certain types of players are marked down (attacking midfielders, occasionally full backs), others are marked up (central defenders and especially strikers). One goal can give a striker an 8.4 instead of a 5.8 or similar, even if it's a penalty or easy chance. One of the last matches I played involved my striker missing multiple chances, misplacing passes, and such. The assistant was saying to take him off, the commentator kept mentioning how bad he was playing, his rating has low, and his motivation was "playing nervously". Then a shot was deflected to him in acres of space with the goalkeeper stranded. He scored. Everything changed. He ended up getting MOTM, based solely on that.

Also, you may notice strikers scoring several goals every fifth match This can keep his form at "7.44 (5 goals)", when in fact he's actually had one 9.8 and scored 4 goals, and been average or worse for 4 matches.

I'm happy with around 6.7 or above usually, if I'm a better side I'll demand more though.

I think the numbers can be misleading. Certain types of players are marked down (attacking midfielders, occasionally full backs), others are marked up (central defenders and especially strikers). One goal can give a striker an 8.4 instead of a 5.8 or similar, even if it's a penalty or easy chance. One of the last matches I played involved my striker missing multiple chances, misplacing passes, and such. The assistant was saying to take him off, the commentator kept mentioning how bad he was playing, his rating has low, and his motivation was "playing nervously". Then a shot was deflected to him in acres of space with the goalkeeper stranded. He scored. Everything changed. He ended up getting MOTM, based solely on that.

Also, you may notice strikers scoring several goals every fifth match This can keep his form at "7.44 (5 goals)", when in fact he's actually had one 9.8 and scored 4 goals, and been average or worse for 4 matches.

I'd never noticed that tbh. It's something i'll have a look out for. Generally i find the goals are pretty spread out through the team. A good job as my strikers, which used to be prolific, are now just average.

Ive always wondered this myself.

In previous years if a player has averaged under 6.5 ive given him a kick up the backside and if a player in a game has scored under 6 he would also get warned but ive found out this year that players get too upset so i dont do it anymore.

This does annoy me because i feel scoring under 6 in a game is pretty poor.

As for an average over the last 5 games i would say 8+ deserves the highest praise and between 7.5 and 7.9 deserves a pat on the back.between 7 and 7.4 he can keep his place in the team.And 6.9 and lower i will consider dropping him to the bench for a couple of games.

Anything above 7.2 is good for me. Between 7 and 7.20 is okay. And less then that...and the player will probably get sold, unless I don't expect that much from him. For example, I signed Gourcuff and placed him in the RM spot, obviously he wasn't exactly going to flourish there, so 6.8 was fine by me.

If a player gets 7-7.5 I regard that as a 'good' performance. 7.6+ I regard as an 'excellent' performance

7.00 is the benchmark for all my players.

Apart from the keeper who never gets near that.

7.00 is the benchmark for all my players.

Apart from the keeper who never gets near that.

Not even a "superkeeper"?

7.00 is the benchmark for all my players.

Agreed. 6.8 and 6.9 I would class as average. Anything below that and I start to think about bringing someone else into the line up.

My team are playing well at the moment, so my averages for the last 5 games are quite high at the moment:

GK - 7.12 (5 clean sheets, what else can he do?)

DR - 7.24

DL - 7.30

DC - 7.36

DC - 7.50

DM - 7.20

MR - 8.02 (scored 3 in 5)

ML - 7.26

AMC - 7.62(scored 3 in 5)

ST - 7.50 (scored 3 in 5)

ST - 7.68 (scored 4 in 5)

Usually I only really look at it when a player goes below 7.

a bit off track here, but ive never understod why they start at 6.4...

shurley, if it goes from a lowest of 0.1 (or 0.0 if thats possible) to 10.0 shouldnt the form at a astart of a game be at 5.0?

7.00 is sexsy enough for me.

I'd never noticed that tbh. It's something i'll have a look out for. Generally i find the goals are pretty spread out through the team. A good job as my strikers, which used to be prolific, are now just average.

Probably just coincidence, and it isn't always every fifth game on the dot.

Personally I consider anyone who get below 7.00 average as underachieving.

8.00 or above would be excellent, and i will single out the player(s) and tell him so.

7.50 or above would be a very good performance and i would generally single out the player(s) and tell him so.(depending on how he has contributed)

Between 6.00/7.50 would be a good performance with no singling any individuals out.

Below a 6.00 and the player is going to get a rocket up his behind.

As I stated earlier, it depends on the quality of the league you manage. For me, the formula I use is below 6.5 yields a singled-out disappointing performance. Between 6.5 and 6.9, yields whatever the team talk is and no singled-out performance. Between 7.0 and 7.4 yields a singled-out pleased performance and 7.5 or greater yields a singled-out delighted performance...

i won't say delighted unless they're over 8.5 for a game normally

7.00 dose me, means they had a good game

If I recall correctly (and it may just apply to MLS-based players) a score of 7.0+ would result in a player's value increasing sharply. I typically view anything from a 6.8 to a 7.1 as average, with anything lower/higher over the course of 5 games worthy of praise/criticism.

I do think the game is too harsh on keepers, though, as my keeper will routinely average less than a goal against over the course of the season yet still only finish with a rating in the 6.9 range.

any rate under 6.5 that player is going to ear from me

Those ratings look pretty solid to me, well done.

I find anything over 7.1 acceptable, but prefer my players to average over 7.2.